Language from an economic perspective

The common wisdom is that if the words are not gold, it is at least silver. Some people therefore weigh their words or make sure that they do not spend too much of it.

Words are as coined as currencies, and remain in circulation as long as they are in force. They are -- words -- the currency of thinking, and we have liquid balances, as much as we have a particular language.

When we agree with someone, we agree on a price to be paid, and when we are not sincere, we pay only false words. When we describe both language and money as assets, we pay attention to their roles in achieving individuality.

They are - language and money - an inherent ability that makes individuality possible by expanding the scope of action for those who possess it, thereby helping them to adapt to society. Bill or bond is also something of a linguistic nature, and words are in fact something that exists in nature. The naïve assumption that the word has an inherent meaning is one of the same as the naïve perception that money is valuable in itself.

But both the word and the currency can only be the same because that is not the case.

They are basically conventional and can perform their functions by abstract them, the first being an exchange tool for moral goods, and the latter an exchange of physical goods.

The similarity of money and language, expressed in coding in the same language, was often seen as merely a stylistic ornament.

In the early 17th century, for example, Stefano Guazzo used this, when he said: Expressions and other words of great value and of lower value come out of the speaker's mouth altogether. As all kinds of currencies, gold, silver and copper, are issued from the Treasury.

However, the analogy of the word in currency also has a time-extended tradition as evidence of the inherent connection between them. In his book, "An Article in Human Understanding", around the end of the seventeenth century, John Locke describes words as the common denominator of trade and communication.

Around the same time, Leibniz's writings show the metaphor of exchange, which links money and language, when he says: By trying to reach conclusion or summary, we often use words. Instead of ideas and things, as if they were blades or chips and then, we finally get to the bottom of the subject. From this it is clear to us how important it is for words, as templates of ideas and as bills, so to speak, to be understandable, distinct, accessible, available, common and satisfying.

Just a few decades later, David Hume explained in his book, A Message in Human Nature. The analogy of the word in currency is more than the issue of figuratively interpreting a particular field of human experience in figurative method by borrowing conceptual tools from another field, but from his point of view, this similarity has been found in parallel evolution. For language, money and their functions in society, he says: Similarly, languages were gradually established through human norms and positions without any commitment or pledge.

Similarly, gold and silver have become the general standard of exchange, and were considered sufficient lychee for 100 times their value.

"Money and language are subjects of research with a degree of depth and abstraction that is as general as their use," says Johan George Hamann. They are more closely linked to each other than imagined, and one theory explains the theory of the other, and appears to be based on common bosses.

The whole wealth of human knowledge is based on the exchange of words. On the other hand, all the treasures of civil and social life are linked to money as its general standard.

Antoine de Rafraul's saying was justified when he wrote years of before the French Revolution, and community activities were already practiced through the means of money: words like money: they had limited value. Limited before you express all kinds of value.

Banknotes and words reflect the exciting relationship between the uniqueness of the physical thing and the generality of the abstract matter, which is - banknotes and words - because only this can function as a tool For exchange.

Although money and language have been sufficiently metaphorically linked, their particular similarity is often overlooked.

Echo, for example, equates words with currencies as signs with a mere prototype that no one has ever understood, but at the same time emphasizes the difference between the two, and this difference is allegedly based on Currencies, not words, have commodity value, and it clearly ignores both the physical side of words and the moral side of currencies.

There is another undeniable difference between speaking words and money, keeping a 100 riyal note memory is clearly not like keeping a word.

As long as I keep a word in my memory, I can spend it once and for all, but keeping the rials in my memory does not help me to pay the bills and installments of the following month.

However, we emphasize that the physical side of words is no less important than the material aspect of money, be it currencies or banknotes.

Florian Colmas says in his book Language and Economy: Words can have commodity value, if not, a range of all resonant phrase-signs would not have made a living.

Although this is not the only example of a word that is paid for when words have a price to pay.

In fact, money and language have relationships that are important in terms of community building. Money performs communication functions, and language does economic functions.

In conclusion, unless we understand the economics of languages, we will not be able to understand the evolution of the linguistic map of the world. On the other hand, a correct understanding of certain economic developments depends on the acceptance of words at nominal value, in the sense that we treat language as an independent economic factor...